HomeMy WebLinkAboutA. Case No. VAR 08-304 Carl's Jr., Evans Company, University Village CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal
Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a third monument sign for
Carl's Jr. located in the University Village Center, which currently has
the maximum number of monument signs the code allows located at
36-879 Cook Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz
Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: National Sign and Marketing
Edward C. Blend
13580 5th Street
Chino, CA 91710
The Evans Company
36-891 Cook Street
Palm Desert, CA 92211
CASE NO.: VAR 08-304
DATE: October 7, 2008
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of staffs recommendation would deny the variance requested by Carl's
Jr. for a third monument sign located in the University Village, which currently has
the maximum number of monument signs than Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 25.68, Signs, allows.
II. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
The property is located on the southwest corner of Cook Street and
Gerald Ford Drive in the University Village Center. Carl's Jr. has frontage
along Gerald Ford Drive, but is requesting that the proposed monument
sign be located along Cook Street.
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 08-304
October 7, 2008
Page 2 of 6
B. Section 25.68.310 Freestanding Signs:
Municipal Code Section 25.68.310-Freestanding signs- A building,
commercial complex, shopping center or other commercial or industrial
development housing more than one tenant and having frontage on a
public street shall be entitled to one freestanding sign on each street
frontage to identify the building, commercial / industrial complex, or
shopping center.
Freestanding signs for buildings, commercial complexes, shopping centers
and other commercial / industrial developments located on less than five
acres of property shall not exceed one-half the total allowable signage of
the front of the building and shall be subtracted there form and in no event
exceed fifty square feet. Maximum height of these signs shall be six feet
unless topographic or other physical features exist necessitating a higher
sign but in no event shall total sign structure height exceed ten feet from the
ground.
C. Municipal Code Section 25.78.010-A(Variance)
Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only
due to special circumstances applicable to the property including when
the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, or the strict
application of the title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any
variance or adjustment granted shall be subject to such conditions as will
assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and district in which the property is situated.
D. Architectural Review Commission:
At its meeting of August 26, 2008 the ARC reviewed the project. The
Commission denied the request for a variance. The motion carried 6-0-1-
0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to Section 25.68, Signs, to allow
a third monument sign for Carl's Jr., located in the University Village Center, which
currently has the maximum amount of monument signs the code allows. Section
25.68.730, Exception process, states "The Planning Commission may approve
exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after a public hearing in
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Cads Jr\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 08-304
October 7, 2008
Page 3 of 6
instances where an applicant is faced with exceptional circumstances because of
the type of location of business, or is trying to achieve a special design effect."
The applicant must show that:
A. The sign will be integrated into the architecture of the building; and
B. The sign will not be detrimental to neighboring business or the
community in general.
The University Village Center is allowed two monument signs per Section
25.68.310 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. When the owner of the University
Village submitted for signage, the owner didn't want multi-tenant signs, and instead
wanted project identification signs. Currently there are two existing monument
signs which state University Village for identification.
Carl's Jr. is located within the University Village Center, fronting along Gerald Ford
Drive. The applicant is proposing to erect the monument sign along Cook Street
located in the desert landscape area. The proposed monument sign would be
located six feet from the face of curb from Cook Street, outside of the public right
of way. The monument face will read "Carl's Jr." in red cursive writing along with
their logo, which is a smiling yellow star. The monument sign is five feet in height
and six feet in length. The proposed sign would be constructed of block to match
the center, with a stucco cap and base painted to match the center. There would
be an external ground lamp located two feet from the monument face to provide
up-lighting for the sign.
IV. ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting an exception from the Planning Commission to allow
a third monument sign for Carl's Jr. located in the University Village Center. The
University Village Center is allowed two monument signs which already exist, per
Section 25.68.310 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The owner of the
University Village Center chose not to have multi tenant signs, and instead opted
for signs which identified the center. The owner has expressed to staff that he
will not remove the identification monument signs for a multi tenant monument
sign. Staff believes the proposed signage will create clutter along Cook Street,
and since other businesses in the area comply with the City's sign ordinance,
approving the proposed variance would set a precedent for all businesses. The
following findings responding to Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.78.010
explain the rationale for denying the variance:
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 08-304
October 7, 2008
Page 4 of 6
A. Findings For Denial:
Section 25.68.730, Exception process, states "The Planning Commission
may approve exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after
a public hearing in instances where an applicant is faced with exceptional
circumstances because of the location of business, or is trying to
achieve a special design effect." The applicant must show that the sign will
be integrated into the architecture of the building and the sign will not be
detrimental to neighboring businesses or the community in general, and:
A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance
codified in this title.
Due to the property fronting on Gerald Ford Drive and the generous
size of the property there is no difficulty or physical hardship related
to the property in question.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use
of the property, that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The property is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this property.
C. That strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
No other variances have been approved for signage in the vicinity.
The applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in
the same area.
D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be
detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed sign would not be detrimental to public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Cads Jr\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 08-304
October 7, 2008
Page 5 of 6
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project would be a Class 3, Categorical Exemption for the purposes of
CEQA and no further review is necessary.
VI. CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, since Carl's Jr. is easily visible from Gerald Ford Drive and coming
off the freeway going south along Cook Street, staff believes that the existing
signs for Carl's Jr. are sufficient in size for identification of the business and the
proposed monument sign would clutter the center. It would also set precedents
for off site signage and number of monument signs that, when applied to similar
businesses, would degrade the aesthetic quality of the city.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. , denying VAR 08-304.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action and Minutes
D. Exhibits: Plans and Photo-simulations
Submitted by: Department Head:
Kevin Swartz Lauri Aylaian
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval: 7/`-�
Cam,,
Homer Croy
ACM for Develo ent Services
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Cads Jr\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN
EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68,
SIGNS THAT WOULD PERMIT A THIRD MONUMENT SIGN FOR
CARL'S JR. LOCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE CENTER
LOCATED AT 36-879 COOK STREET.
CASE NO. VAR 08-304
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
7th day of October, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Carl's
Jr., for the above noted variance; and
WHEREAS, said application is not a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act, and no further documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of said request:
A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title.
Due to the property fronting on Gerald Ford Drive and the generous size of the
property there is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in
question.
B. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
The property is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to this property.
C. That strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same vicinity and zone.
No other variances have been approved for signage in the vicinity. The
applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in the same area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed sign would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That Variance 08-304 is hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on the 7t" day of October, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VAN G. TANNER, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
CITY Of 1 {iLRI EIESEI I
. 4,1 ►fr 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
f, PALM DFSERI,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
�`. i P;'N fn TEL:760 ;46-o6n
y � � FAX:760 341-7098
'-Ii..i.... . info palm-degerr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.VAR 08-304
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by Carl's Jr.for approval of a Variance for an
exception to Section 25.68, Sign Ordinance to allow a monument sign located at 36-879
Cook Street.
1 Ci of Palm Desert Ma
11111 ) cK G
6 ° %A ce
oo
=
CO /
o0.
G �v �" i6i0
FORD DR
o
( \ /'
C
et.
FO
R
.t,..,,, \ 11 §
....„.
SIM : ------___,...NNN.,,,,,,N,
S
i 1. 1= 8ERGER RO
I.
O 1•.
U N
a
0
0
0 ) -- I
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian,Secretary
September 27,2008 Palm Desert Planning Commission
( ,
..............
..•..... .......
..
CITY OF RLffl DESERT
...
... , ....
Jr ,, 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
(,.,.....______/ PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
`� ' � • TEL: 76o 346—o6tt
,. y FAx 760 341-7og8
.1. tinfo@palm-desert.org
August 28, 2008
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NOS: VAR 08-304
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NATIONAL SIGN & MARKETING
CORPORATION, 13580 5th Street, Chino, CA 91710
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument
sign for: Carl's Jr.
LOCATION: 36-879 Cook Street
ZONE: PCD FCOZ
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission recommended denial of the
Variance request for an additional monument sign. The Commission approved a
temporary sign for a period of one year, for which design and any extensions of
time will be reviewed by staff and the temporary sign will replace one of the "For
Lease" signs on site.
Date of Action: August 26, 2008
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved
•
by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building
and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda,
new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the
Monday eight days prior to the next meeting.
C,MOB 01 If(RlID N1R1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES August 26, 2008
5. CASE NOS: VAR 08-304
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NATIONAL SIGN & MARKETING
CORPORATION, 13580 5th Street, Chino, CA 91710
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
a monument sign for: Carl's Jr.
LOCATION: 36-879 Cook Street
ZONE: PCD FCOZ
Mr. Swartz summarized this project. He stated that this was a
request for a variance for a monument sign on Cook Street and
because of the variance it will have to go to Planning Commission
for approval; it is here today for the architecture. He explained that
the way the code reads is that you get a monument sign for a large
center such as this for frontage. The owner wants a sign at the
corner of University Village for shops and retail and currently they
have one on the entrance off of Cook Street, so any new sign
proposed has to go through a variance. One option could be if the
owner were to remove one of the monument signs then they could
do a multi-tenant sign. Staff feels that due to clustering they didn't
want to set precedence of approving the monument sign and
having another business come back and want the same.
Mr. Steve Rosenblum, National Sign & Marketing Corporation,
understands staff's concerns and felt that they have an option to
work with that by creating a sign that compliments the rest of the
shopping center. It is designed to match the monument signs in the
center. He mentioned that they have a really unique situation for
this site. The site is actually fronting on Gerald Ford; however it
has a Cook Street address. The downside to a site like this is that
they have this great location with no traffic; no one even knows the
restaurant is there. He explained that Carl's Jr. operates with about
75% to 80% of its business in the driveway but if you can't
communicate to the motoring public who travels up and down Cook
Street it doesn't do so well. A monument sign is really needed out
on Cook Street to notify the motoring public that we are there. He
stated that most businesses in the valley that are free-standing
restaurants have monuments signs. This restaurant provides a
service to the public and brings in revenue to the city; and they feel
that this is a fairly important thing. We worked with staff and the
landlord, who is supportive of the project.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008' R080826.min.doc Page 8 of 15
ARCHITECTURAL REviEW COMMISSION
MINUTES August 26, 2008
Mr. Rosenblum explained that they have designed the sign to
match the center's signage down to the exact same brand and style
of ground lighting, the same block materials. He provided photos of
both day and night views showing the traffic both north and
southbound on Cook Street. The code meets all code
requirements and height requirements for a monument sign. It is a
simple sign to create business success in that center. He
mentioned that all the other sites have Cook Street oriented
signage, whereas Carl's Jr., doesn't have anything that you can see
while traveling down Cook Street.
Commissioner DeLuna suggested a multi-tenant sign that had the
Carl's Jr., logo and would be a better option than sticking a big
monument sign over on Gerald Ford. She was concerned with the
next applicant coming in to request the same thing. Mr. Rosenblum
stated that staff can condition that and stated that it must be for a
drive-thru oriented business only.
Mr. Fred Evans, Developer, stated that it is important to understand
that this is relative to the size of the center. This is an anchor for us
and is our largest tenant to date and it is important from a landlord's
point, a city point and staff and residential point that we support
these businesses that are down there on Cook Street and Gerald
Ford. We should be doing everything that we can to get their
businesses as successful as possible. He stated that they have
worked real hard to come up with a design that works with the
center; it matches the center and works with the current signage. It
is really important that we are working together with Carl's and that
we support the sign and we support the location. We are not going
to re-do our existing signage and add multiple tenant signs on a
sign because it goes against the concept of what the center is. He
stated that they pushed the building against the street so that the
tenants can get signage and that street wouldn't be riddled with
signs. This is something that he thought would support their major
tenant long term and short term. Right now on Cook Street you
have three to four times the traffic as you do on Gerald Ford and he
felt that the public needs to know and that they have a viable eating
option 200 feet off the street.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy Nord Files\A Minutes\2008WR080826.min.doc Page 9 of 15
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES August 26, 2008
Commissioner DeLuna asked when they purchased that site were
they aware of what the requirements were at that time. Mr. Evans
answered yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there was
something that has changed that causes them to come now and
request a variance. Mr. Evans said yes because our economy is in
the tank. He explained that when they built the site, they came out
and projected that there would be "X" number of houses around the
neighborhood and there is none; it has dried up, so we have do
everything we can to support these tenants between now and when
that housing starts back up. Commissioner Hanson asked when
the housing goes back up, can the sign come down. Mr. Evans
answered no. Commissioner Hanson asked why not, because then
that defeats his whole point.
The Commission reviewed the other buildings in the center. They
talked about other restaurants or drive-thrush coming into that
center. Mr. Evans stated that in their CC&Rs there will be no other
drive-thru restaurant in that center because the buildings are
designated as office. He stated that if the houses had gone in their
sales would have been much stronger, however we would probably
still be asking for a variance because the amount of traffic on
Gerald Ford is so much less than that of Cook. Commissioner
DeLuna stated that the real estate market will turn and when the
houses are built then the City has a precedence sitting here that is
no longer an issue because you now have the traffic that you are
concerned with now, but yet the sign stays. Mr. Evans agreed
because the conversation of setting precedent has been a historical
conversation with them. Right now in our current condition we
need to do something. We are competing against a Jack-In-The-
Box on the next block up that has a monument sign on their
building that is so big they can park a car under it. We are asking
for a very small sign that matches the center. He mentioned that
they have designed a sign that is appealing and not large. Mr.
Rosenblum stated that if the City was concerned about setting a
precedent, it's a positive precedent you want to set. Think of all the
monument signs in the city. Commissioner Hanson stated that the
Commission doesn't like monument signs. Mr. Rosenblum stated
that this is simple block to match the rest of the center. Mr. Evans
stated that they were just as sensitive to the Commission's
concerns about monument signs.
G:\Planning\.lanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 10 of 15
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES August 26, 2008
The Commission reviewed the locations of the proposed sign and
the entrances to the Center and discussed the visibility of Carl's
coming off the freeway and coming down Cook Street.
Commissioner Gregory asked about a multi tenant sign and not
establishing precedent. Ms. Aylaian, Director of Community
Development stated that if the landlord wanted to change the
monument signs to identify three tenants they could do that in a
single monument sign on Cook Street. Mr. Evans wanted to clarify
that the Commission did not want to see a monument sign, but
would rather see a multi-tenant sign verses a single tenant sign.
Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem is with the variance
issues. Ms. Aylaian stated that they would have to remove their
existing monument sign because they can only have one
monument sign on that site. Mr. Evans stated that he would never
get ownership's approval of removing those entrance signs and
making one multi-tenant sign. He stated that considering that
Carl's is one of their majors they thought it was important to request
a variance for a single tenant sign in that location.
Ms. Aylaian said the existing ordinance stipulates exactly where
you get signs and does not have provisions for drive-thru or vehicle
oriented businesses. She stated that what they are trying to do is
guide businesses through this difficult economic time with an eye
towards the future so that we don't make decisions in the short term
that will be bad in the long term for the community. She said that
the most valid suggestion that she heard is the suggestion by
Commissioner Hanson to put it up for a limited period of time after
which it will be removed when that area is developed. The
Commission discussed the length of time that the sign would stay in
place.
Ms. Aylaian stated that the center currently has a very aggressive
temporary signage program and suggested that they use one of the
several "For Lease" signs on the site. Mr. Evans stated that if that
is part of getting this Carl's sign approved he is more than willing to
do that. Ms. Aylaian stated that what we don't want to do is build
clutter upon clutter and with the temporary signs we are over that
threshold. The Commission discussed the temporary signs and the
length of time that the temporary sign would be there.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 11 of 15
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES August 26, 2008
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would be opposed to a
temporary sign out there because it just adds clutter. He felt that
their best solution would be to modify their other monument sign on
that side and add Carl's Jr. to it. Mr. Bagato stated that they could
issue a Temporary Use Permit for the temporary sign and review it
after one year. He stated that nothing can be temporary that
requires a building permit; because once they get a building permit
it would be permanent. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the temporary
sign would have to be professionally and nicely done.
Ms. Kelly Karcher, Carl's Jr., mentioned that Carl's Jr., has been
here in the valley for over 30 years. They enjoy being here as a
part of the community and being active in it. She understands that
the City doesn't want a permanent sign on Cook but feels that the
presence of Carl's Jr., is important to the community and local
schools. She stated that if their presence on Cook Street is know,
then that would be increased and they would definitely be there for
everyone.
Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant could decide not to seek a
temporary sign and go on to Planning Commission with ARC
support or denial since this isn't the final step. He asked the
applicant if they wanted to wait and try the temporary first and then
come back later on the variance or move forward on the variance.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that they wanted to move forward. Mr.
Bagato suggested that the Commission make a recommendation
on the application for variance.
ACTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lambe ll and seconded by Commissioner
Touschner recommended denial of the Variance request for an additional
monument sign. The Commission approved a temporary sign for a period
of one year, for which design and any extensions of time will be reviewed
by staff and the temporary sign will replace one of the "For Lease" signs
on site. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Fites\A Minutes\2008'AR080826.min.doc Page 12 of 15
— —_ —_
National Sign = _ — = Visual
_ = Information
Systems Company
w oos° & MARKETING CORPORATION ELECTRONIC SIGNS
e division of wooer rnronne00n systems Company CL#442769
July 15, 2008
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Attn: Planning Department
RE: Carl's Jr.,36879 Cook Street-Monument Sign
To Whom It May Concern:
During the development of the above referenced project,we worked with the landlord and the city regarding
the installation of a monument sign on Cook Street. In order to ensure the success of this project it is critical
that a permit is granted for this sign.
As you are aware,the development of this area has slowed greatly, and traffic to the project is limited at
best.This site,which fronts on Gerald Ford is hidden to its potential clients. Due to the unique
characteristics of the project,findings should be made to grant our requested sign on Cook Street.
These findings can be made on the following basis:
a. This site is in a hidden area of the shopping center that offers poor visibility from Cook
Street,yet the project has a Cook Street address.
b. Area competitors not only have street oriented signage, but also enjoy high visibility and
easy public access.
c. We have attained both the support and signed approval of the developer of the shopping
center to add a monument sign due to the unusual characteristics of this center.
d. Carl's Jr. Restaurant is the only Drive Thru business in the center, creating the special
need to inform the motoring public as to its location and availability for patronage.
e. A monument sign will help create awareness that Carl's Jr. is available as a dining option
to the motoring public.
i. Without conveying this information,this site will lack the client base that it needs
to be successful and be a disservice to the development,the city, and of course
the business itself.
Furthermore,the permitting of this monument sign will not infringe on the rights of other businesses, nor
shall it create cause of other business to be allowed any additional signage without specific site meriting
conditions.
In closing,the proposed signage is designed to meet city code requirements that allow other similar
business to have monument signage at their sites. Our site is specifically disadvantaged due to the unique
characteristics of The Village at University Park,and our proposal helps to remedy these disadvantages and
allow us to be a viable competitive business in this prominent location in the community.
Respectfully,
Edward C. Blend
Permit Specialist
(Signage Contractor for CLK, Inc.)
13580 Fifth Street • Chino • CA • 91710 • 909.591.4742 • Fax 909.591.5356 P.O.Box 2409 • Chino • CA • 91708-2409